You can access my book 'Absent Justice' here → Order Now—it's Free. It presents a compelling narrative that addresses critical societal issues related to justice and equity within Australia's arbitration and mediation processes. If you see the value in the research and evidence behind this important work, consider supporting  Transparency International Australia! Your donation will help raise awareness about the injustices that impact our democracy. 

Learn about horrendous crimes, unscrupulous criminals, and corrupt politicians and lawyers who control the legal profession in Australia. Shameful, hideous, and treacherous are just a few words that describe these lawbreakers. Read about the corruption within the government bureaucracy that plagued the COT arbitrations. Uncover who committed these horrendous crimes and where they sit in Australia’s Establishment and the legal system that allowed these injustices to occur!

Explore the insidious corruption that has seeped deep into the fabric of Australia’s government bureaucracy, casting a dark shadow over the arbitration and mediation system. This corruption is so pervasive and shocking that those reading this part of this true story may be overwhelmed with disgust and disbelief. How has this troubling situation come to fruition?  

In 2002, I found myself in the imposing halls of the Victorian Supreme Court, alongside Barrister Neil Jepson, as we stood as witnesses for Barrister Suen Owens. My journey to this moment began in 1998 when Mr. Jepson first engaged me to assist the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police. Our task was to untangle the perplexing test results from Bell Canada International Inc. These results alarmingly indicated that Telstra had knowingly misrepresented information to the arbitrator back in 1994 regarding BCI tests at the Cape Bridgewater and Portland telephone exchanges—tests that, in truth, were never conducted at all.

On 26 September 1997, after most of the arbitrations had been concluded, including mine, the second appointed Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, John Pinnock, who took over from Warwick Smith, formally addressed a Senate estimates committee refer to page 99 COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA - Parliament of Australia and Prologue Evidence File No 22-D). He noted:

“In the process leading up to the development of the arbitration procedures – the claimants were told clearly that documents were to be made available to them under the FOI Act.

“Firstly, and perhaps most significantly, the arbitrator had no control over that process, because it was a process conducted entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedures.”

No amendment is attached to any agreement, signed by the COT members, allowing the arbitrator to conduct those particular arbitrations entirely outside the ambit of the arbitration procedure – and neither was it stated that he would have no control over the process once we had signed those individual agreements. How can the arbitrator and TIO continue to hide or deny the COT Cases the reason our requested telephone log books from the relevant telephone exchanges that serviced our businesses were withheld from us?.

One of the most critical pieces of evidence that Mr Neil Jepson and other members of the Major Fraud Group was the admission by the second appointed administrator to the COT arbitrations in which the Victoria Police was investigating if Dr Gordon Hughes had no control over the arbitrations which had costed most of them hundreds of thousands of dollars of their borrowed monies to be part of the solution to fix their ongoing telephone problems then who was in charges of the arbitrations.

During our discussions, I relayed to Mr Jepson a startling piece of evidence: faxes sent from the Owen Dixon Legal Chambers in Melbourne to the Victorian Supreme Court were intercepted by a secondary fax machine, cunningly connected to Telstra's telecommunications network. This revelation startled Mr Jepson and later raised concerns for Peter Hiland, the Barrister for Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV). Mr Hiland had agreed to an interview with me through the mediation of an adversarial figure—an unnamed Crown Prosecutor. This individual, who had a contentious history with Mr Hiland in court, was also a highly decorated former police commander, having received the "Order of Australia" for his distinguished service.

On October 7, 2007, this celebrated ex-police officer entrusted me with thirty-six spiral-bound volumes of evidence and a large Lever Arch file indexed similarly to Evidence File-1 - Evidence-File-2. These documents meticulously outlined the failures in the arbitration processes affecting four out of sixteen cases. In November 2007, Mr. Hiland, through the intermediary of this unnamed commander, requested that I transfer all thirty-six files onto a disk, allowing CAV to duplicate the evidence once I completed the task. While this massive undertaking required countless hours of meticulous work, successfully finishing it would save Consumer Affairs Victoria significant time, money, and effort.

I am proud to say that the findings I compiled have now been made available on this website, absentjustice.com, firmly establishing that such a comprehensive filing system existed. The thirty-six spiral-bound volumes are securely stored in a safe location. It took me about two weeks to painstakingly reproduce these volumes of evidence, along with the 1,680 exhibits.

So why am I sharing this detailed account? When Peter Hiland received the CD he requested, he demanded evidence demonstrating that the Victorian Supreme Court functioned no differently than the homes and residences involved in the COT Cases or any other Australian citizen who dared to confront the might of Telstra Corporation. After eighteen long months of labouring to document and copy the evidence onto that disk, Peter Hiland and the CAV ultimately decided not to make a finding, leaving many questions unanswered.

Apart from the issues involving the Supreme Court, Petr Hiland was particularly troubled by Telstra's use of falsified reports from Bell Canada International Inc. submitted to the arbitrator under oath. Three years later, Telstra presented this same false information to the Senate, which accepted it as factual while disregarding my claims. When evaluated alongside my reporting, my claims were proven to be accurate. As the following segment illustrates, this falsehood employed by Bell Canada International and Telstra also raises concerns regarding the Canadian government.

 The government’s failure to demand that Telstra withdraw the Bell Canada Internationaltests from all COT cases arbitration and mediation claims effectively granted the arbitrator and the process administrator unfettered discretion to continue their actions for years following the arbitration and mediation proceedings. This situation allowed them to imply that all Bell Canada International Inc testing issues had been resolved during those processes, thereby preventing Telstra from admitting that the COT Cases had been correct. The telephone problems brought to arbitration by the COT Cases were systemic and ongoing across the network; therefore, they should never have had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in arbitration fees for issues that Telstra should have resolved under their licensing agreements.

While the Australian government publicly endorsed the arbitration process at the heart of the COT cases, they shockingly failed to provide any real support upon discovering that Telstra, a corporation owned by the government, relied on the fundamentally flawed assessments of Bell Canada International. These assessments proclaimed that Telstra’s telecommunications infrastructure was of world-class quality—a claim echoed in joint media releases from both Bell Canada and Telstra. At the time, the John Howard government, fully aware of the numerous shortcomings in the telephone network, used these misleading assertions to bolster their efforts to privatize Telstra.

Despite the significant implications, no one informed the COT arbitration that the misleading claims made by Bell Canada International undermined the essential truths regarding the condition of Telstra's network—the very reason the COT Cases were in arbitration. The COT Cases involved individuals who had invested substantial financial resources into their arbitration and mediation claims, facing considerable financial hardship while fighting a government-owned corporation. At that time, Telstra was using public funds to oppose the COT Cases, which were attempting to expose the dire state of Telstra's network. How could the COT Cases win their claims against such overwhelming odds? The government's complicity in assisting Telstra to obscure these crucial facts jeopardized the credibility of the process and cast a shadow over the arbitration proceedings. This complicity ultimately undermined the integrity of the claims filed against Bell Canada International Inc., leaving the COT Cases to navigate an uphill battle for justice in a system biased toward government bureaucrats.

I asked Bell Canada to acknowledge that their testing was grossly flawed so that the COT Cases could appeal their awards. However, I never received a response. The only reply I received regarding this matter was from the Canadian government, as indicated below.

I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action

"In view of the facts of this situation, as I understand them, I believe you are taking the most appropriate course of action in contacting BCI directly with respect to the alleged errors in their test report, should you feel that they could assist you in your case."   

In 2015, I submitted this crucial evidence to the Australian Federal Police, several government ministers, and four relevant government agencies with the authority to investigate further. The process of redacting the names and sensitive details of those involved in the intricate COT Cases saga has been both labour-intensive and financially draining. Given that no actions have been taken based on these redacted documents, I feel it is necessary to bring forward the evidence that supports my case on absentjustice.com. We have no choice but to identify those culpable, including certain government regulators and members of Australia’s elite, who operate covertly to safeguard the government’s interests.

Consider, for example, the enigmatic individuals behind Australia’s latest five SSN-AUKUS https://shorturl.at/vkoNC submarine deals. Australia is slated to acquire five state-of-the-art submarines from the United States in the mid-2050s, with a staggering projected cost ranging from $268 billion to $368 billion—sums that raise serious questions about fiscal responsibility and national priorities.

If you hover your cursor over "Flash Backs – China-Vietnam," you will discover how government bureaucrats in 1967 believed that losing some of Australia’s young men in the jungles of North Vietnam while fighting valiantly alongside our allies from New Zealand and the USA, was acceptable. Ironically, their lives seemed less important than selling Australia’s wheat to China, which was framed as humanitarian aid. At the same time, China was redeploying that same wheat to North Vietnamese soldiers, who then marched into the jungles of North Vietnam in search of Australian, New Zealand and USA soldiers to kill and maim.

I selected the image titled "TELECOM SPYING ON ITS EMPLOYEES" because it exposes the unsettling reality that Telecom (now rebranded as Telstra) was surveilling its employees and intruding into its customers' private lives. This invasive behaviour came to light in the case involving the Casualties of Telstra, where the company was embroiled in arbitration after it was revealed that customers' voices had been monitored for extended periods.

In my own experience, a series of documents were unintentionally released—though I find it difficult to believe this was an accidental oversight—because an insider at Telstra recorded nearly an entire A4 page of my conversations with former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser that had been redacted.

During two significant phone calls with Mr. Fraser, we delved into his time as Minister for the Army during the tumultuous Vietnam War era. I shared with him my troubling recollections of being interrogated in Communist China on espionage charges back in 1967. I also inquired if he remembered receiving a letter from me dated September 18, 1967, in which I recounted my harrowing experiences in Communist China and the alarming events witnessed by several seamen, including myself.

We witnessed Australian wheat being unloaded from our Hopepeak ship and then redirected to North Vietnam. In this country, Australian, New Zealand, and U.S. troops were actively engaged in a brutal war. This troubling situation prompted the crew, myself included, to refuse to transport another load of grain from Australia back to Communist China, as we were deeply concerned about the implications of our actions.

For more information on this topic, please refer to "Flash Backs – China-Vietnam." .

British Seaman’s Record R744269 -  Open Letter to PM File No 1 Alan Smiths Seaman. 

The Canadian government and its moral code of ethics.   

The Canadian government strongly supported my claims against the fundamentally flawed report by Bell Canada International Inc., which Telstra used to defend itself in my arbitration claims. Additionally, a Canadian technical consultant from DMR Group Canada Inc., who was brought in as the principal technical consultant from Montreal, Quebec (H3B 4G7), confirmed that the arbitration process I was involved in would not have been allowed to proceed so unethically in North America.

By hovering your mouse over the Canadian flag image below, you can also learn about the strong ethical principles upheld by Canadian seamen. Despite facing significant challenges, they believed that sending wheat to Communist China—especially when that wheat was being redeployed to North Vietnam, a country at war with Australia, New Zealand, and the USA, where hundreds of troops were being killed or maimed—was immoral and unethical, and therefore should not have continued.

Yet the Australian Government made a conscious decision to maintain its trade relations with Communist China, despite knowing that a significant portion of Australia’s wheat was being diverted to North Vietnam. This wheat was not merely a trade commodity; it had the potential to sustain North Vietnamese soldiers who were directly engaged in combat against Australia and its allies during the conflict. The ramifications of this trade raised serious ethical questions about the implications of supporting a nation that was opposing Australian, New Zealand and USA forces.

A striking similarity in my narrative regarding the Chinese Cultural Revolution is Canadians' perspective on democracy and the concepts of right and wrong. This is evident in Tianxiao Zhu's Footnote 169 → FOOD AND TRADE IN LATE MAOIST CHINA, 1960-1978, effectively highlighting the ethical standards Canadian seamen uphold. Unbeknownst to them, they supported several British seamen and one Australian seaman (myself), as I clearly illustrate in the narrative below.

Tianxiao Zhu's Footnote 83, 84, 169: In September 1967, a group of British merchant seamen quit their ship, the Hope Peak, in Sydney and flew back to London. They told the press in London that they quit the job because of the humiliating experiences to which they were subjected while in Chinese ports. They also claimed that grain shipped from Australia to China was being sent straight on to North Vietnam. One of them said,“I have watched grain going off our ship on conveyor belts and straight into bags stamped North Vietnam. Our ship was being used to take grain from Australia to feed the North Vietnamese. It’s disgusting.” (my emphasis)84. The Minister of Trade and Industry received an inquiry about the truth of the story in Parliament, to which the Minister pointed out that when they left Australia, the seamen only told the Australian press that they suffered such intolerable maltreatment in various Chinese ports that they were fearful about going back. But after they arrived in London, Vietnam was added to their story. Thus the Minister claimed that he did not know the facts and did not want to challenge this story, but it seemed to him that their claims about Vietnam seemed to be an “afterthought.” 169 "...In Vancouver, nine sailors refused to work on a grain ship headed to China: two of them eventually returned to work, and the other were arrested. Just when the ship was about to sail, seven more left the ship but three of them later returned to work. In Sydney, six  Canadian sailors left their ship; they resigned and asked to be paid, but the Australian immigration office repatriated them. At that time a grain ship usually had crew members about 40 people. A British ship lost the Chief Officer and sixteen seamen, who told journalists that if the ship were going to the communist countries, they would rather go to jail than work on the ship..

Examining this wheat agreement made with the People's Republic of China during the Menzies government in the mid-1960s is essential. This controversial deal had significant implications, which were obscured by a government campaign to discredit British and Canadian merchant seamen, including myself. These brave individuals tried every conceivable legal way to expose this illicit diversion of wheat to North Vietnam. 

How does one share these harrowing stories without naming the individuals who systematically coerce low-income Australians into repaying financial assistance that they received—often with threats from these public officials looming over them? These officials wielded the power to imprison those who failed to repay these alleged government overpayments. I am, of course, referring to the deeply controversial robodebt scheme https://shorturl.at/YVP0C.

My COT story brings to light a pressing concern regarding the perception public servants in Australia have of their roles—a belief that they are inherently superior to the citizens they serve. This disconnect often results in a focus on their own opinions about what deserves investigation, sidelining the voices of everyday Australians who encounter these issues firsthand. At the heart of my narrative is an extraordinary group of twenty-one individuals, including sixteen who have bravely confronted discrimination by government public servants. Fueled by a deep sense of justice and a commitment to transparency, this dedicated group tirelessly worked to uncover the truths surrounding AUSTEL, the former government communications authority now known as ACMA. Their efforts shed light on the injustices many face and serve as a powerful reminder of the importance of listening to those on the front lines.

We COT Cases and AUSTEL collectively uncovered that more than 120,000 Australians were grappling with serious phone issues, as documented in a government report dated April 13, 1994. The report shockingly disclosed that the government only acknowledged around 50 COT-type phone problems, omitting the existence of the 120,000 COT-type complaints that Telstra had pressured AUSTEL to silence before the report was presented to the COT Case arbitrator, the Hon. Michael Lee MP, Minister for Communications, and the general public. (Refer to Open Letter File No/11. → Bad bureaucrats and the establishment.

For a government regulator to transform an alarming tally of 120,000 COT-type complaints into a mere 50 or so and present this manipulated report to the COT arbitrator is nothing short of a significant deception. Australia's public servants have misled the minister overseeing telecommunications and the general public, who seem to prioritise a quick resolution over transparency. This approach served only to obscure the inconvenient truths surrounding the COT Cases. Meanwhile, the other 120,000 Telstra customers—unjustly informed that the issues they faced stemmed from their actions rather than systemic problems within Telstra's network—continue to suffer the consequences of this cover-up. 

How do you articulate an extraordinary narrative that your editor pushes for more evidence to substantiate your claims, insisting that she won’t refine your incomprehensible assertions without irrefutable proof? How do you unravel the troubling truth that the defendants in an arbitration process—once a government-owned telecommunications giant—utilized equipment linked to their network to screen faxed materials leaving your office covertly? They stored these documents without your knowledge or consent before rerouting them to their intended recipients. Were the defendants leveraging this intercepted information to bolster their defence in arbitration, ultimately to the detriment of innocent claimants seeking justice?

Consider the gravity of the situation: how many other arbitration processes in Australia have fallen victim to this insidious form of hacking? Is this electronic eavesdropping—this blatant intrusion into confidential documentation—still a reality amid legitimate Australian arbitrations? In January 1999, the claimants in the arbitration submitted a damning report to the Australian Government, confirming that sensitive, arbitration-related documents were being secretly and illegally screened before they arrived at their designated destinations.  In my case, despite the contrary statement from the arbitrator's secretary—who confirmed that six of my faxed claim documents never reached the arbitrator's office—I was unfairly denied the chance to resubmit this crucial material for assessment. My fax account clearly shows that I dialled the correct number on all six occasions.

It is clear from exhibits (Files 646 and 647 Exhibits AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty (refer also to Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1;

Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the Portland telephone exchange was turned off every time this officer left the exchange? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994/95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2025.

In February 1994, I was contacted by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) with critical information: I was required to systematically differentiate the telephone complaints lodged by my single club patrons since 1990 from those submitted by educational institutions and other organizations during the 1990s, which had also expressed dissatisfaction with my services. This distinction was imperative, as the AFP had revealed that Telstra—Australia’s predominant telecommunications provider—had been methodically recording my single club members' names, addresses, and telephone numbers over an extended period. These records, meticulously maintained within Telstra's internal files, became the focal point of an ongoing investigation.

After this revelation, the AFP recommended that the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) consider the suspension of the COT arbitration proceedings. However, the TIO opted not to act on this suggestion. The AFP's recommendation was significant, underscoring the necessity for a comprehensive investigation into how Telstra, a substantial entity in the telecommunications sector, acquired such nuanced details regarding my telephone communications. The investigation involved tracing caller identities and their geographical locations, which frequently originated from unexpected regions unrelated to my business operations. Warwick Smith, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, declined to suspend the arbitrations.

Additionally, the inquiry aimed to ascertain how Telstra could determine the exact times my office staff departed the holiday camp during my absence. At the same time, I was occupied with promotional activities for my business. This raises substantial concerns about the extent of Telstra's surveillance capabilities and data collection methodologies.

Exhibits 646 and 647 (see AS-CAV Exhibits 589 to 647) clearly show that Telstra admitted in writing to the Australian Federal Police on 14 April 1994 that my private and business telephone conversations were listened to and recorded over several months, but only when a particular officer was on duty. 

Does Telstra expect the AFP to accept that every time this officer left the Portland telephone exchange, the alarm bell set up to broadcast my telephone conversations throughout the Portland telephone exchange was turned off every time this officer left the exchange? What was the point of setting up equipment connected to my telephone lines that only operated when this person was on duty? When I asked Telstra under the FOI Act during my arbitration to supply me all the detailed data obtained from this special equipment set up for this specially assigned Portland technician, that data was not made available during my 1994.95 arbitration and has still not been made available in 2024.

This individual is the former Telstra Portland technician who supplied an unknown person named 'Micky' with the phone and fax numbers that I used to contact them via my telephone service lines (Refer to Exhibit 518 FOI folio document K03273 - AS-CAV Exhibits 495 to 541)

Another particularly troubling FOI document involved Telstra documenting a telephone call made by the proprietor of an Adelaide pizza establishment from a location substantially removed from my typical contacts. This situation necessitates further examination into how Telstra accurately tracked communications. Moreover, it is concerning how Telstra identified a specific bus company in their notes related to my tender for transporting groups to my business, mainly since I had engaged with five other firms, none of which were referenced in their documentation. This crucial line of inquiry is also addressed in the transcripts, emphasising the need for transparency and accountability, see Australian Federal Police Investigation File No/1.

Under the directive of the AFP, I was assigned the formidable task of translating my detailed diary entries from my desktop booking exercise books into neatly organized hard-copy diaries. It was stipulated that these diaries remain strictly confidential and not be disclosed to Telstra under any circumstances. While I engaged in this meticulous task, the AFP concurrently investigated alarming reports of phone and fax hacking that impacted my operations.

Regrettably, a serious oversight occurred several months later: the hard-copy diaries, which my arbitration claim advisors assured would be safeguarded during the AFP's thirteen-month investigation, were inadvertently sent to Telstra by these advisors.

As I worked on my draft in 1999, I shared it with Helen Handbury, Rupert Murdoch’s sister. She was taken aback by the outright denial of natural justice that we, the COT Cases, had endured. Helen had visited my holiday camp twice, and after reading my draft, she said with conviction, "I will get Rupert to publish this; he will be shocked."

One of the more perplexing aspects of my story for Helen was the concrete evidence I had amassed demonstrating the length of time I had been afflicted by illegal fax hacking. This alarming violation continued even during her second visit to my camp. 

HELEN HANDBURY - Sister of Rupert Murdoch

I found myself grappling with a heavy reluctance to disclose to Helen that Rupert Murdoch was not only aware of but potentially complicit in Telstra's unethical practices. The implications of this revelation weighed on me, especially considering the enormous sum of $400 million depicted in the image below. If this amount were indeed channeled to FOX, it would represent a significant betrayal to every Australian citizen. Many of these individuals, struggling to maintain their livelihoods, have already endured the financial strain of covering their own arbitration and mediation costs just to secure a reliable phone service—an essential lifeline for their telephone-dependent businesses. This situation raises critical questions about accountability and fairness in an industry that should prioritize ethical standards. For those interested in exploring this issue further, I encourage you to refer to point 10 on pages 5164 and 5165 in the SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia → click below.

Hover your cursor/mouse over the following image →

In 1999, during a pivotal moment in my writing journey, I shared a draft of this absentjustice.com story with Helen Handbury, the sister of media mogul Rupert Murdoch. Upon reading it, she was taken aback by the shocking denial of natural justice that we, the Casualties of Telstra (COT for short) Cases, had been subjected to for far too long. Helen had visited my holiday camp twice, and her sincere concern echoed in her words when she said, “I will get Rupert to have it published; he will be shocked.” Her frankness revealed her deep empathy for our plight.

Helen Handbury visited my holiday camp a second time after reading my manuscript at absentjustice.com; she promised to provide my evidence supporting this website to her brother Rupert. She believed he would be appalled by Telstra's disregard for justice. I hesitated to inform Helen that Rupert Murdoch knew about Telstra's unethical practices. These illegal activities cost every Australian citizen millions of dollars in lost revenue. This revenue should have rightfully gone to the government and its citizens. This information is well documented in SENATE Hansard; therefore, Rupert Murdoch would have been aware that through Telstra's unethical practices, News Corp and Foxtel were compensated by Telstra for not meeting their cable rollout commitment time. This is quoted from point 10, pages 5164 and 5165→ SENATE official Hansard – Parliament of Australia

Telstra’s CEO and Board have known about the scam since 1992. They have had the time and opportunity to change the policy and reduce the cost of labour so that cable roll-out commitments could be met and Telstra would be in good shape for the imminent share issue. Instead, they have done nothing but deceive their Minister, their appointed auditors and the owners of their stock— the Australian taxpayers. The result of their refusal to address the TA issue is that high labour costs were maintained and Telstra failed to meet its cable roll-out commitment to Foxtel. This will cost Telstra directly at least $400 million in compensation to News Corp and/or Foxtel and further major losses will be incurred when Telstra’s stock is issued at a significantly lower price than would have been the case if Telstra had acted responsibly.  

It is imperative to underscore the $400 million compensation deal negotiated between Telstra, Rupert Murdoch, and Fox. This arrangement stipulated that Telstra would owe $400 million if it failed to deliver the committed telecommunications services by the deadline. 

My primary concern does not pertain to the compensation that Telstra is obligated to provide in the event of a missed deadline in delivering all promised services to FOX. In sixteen COT cases, all Australian citizens were promised similar commitments by Telstra on the condition that they financed their own arbitrations to resolve ongoing issues. Unfortunately, the telephone problems experienced by the COT Cases were not addressed in these costly arbitration proceedings. In certain instances, these individuals continue to endure challenges due to the unfulfilled commitments made by both Telstra and the arbitrator.

In essence, it appears that one set of legal standards exists for individuals well-connected to the Australian government, such as Rupert Murdoch, and a different set for those who do not possess such connections.

The Senate Hansard neglects to address a key issue: Who within Telstra's upper echelons orchestrated the $400 million compensation agreement with Foxtel? This is particularly concerning, given that Telstra was already aware, even before finalizing this substantial financial deal, that it would be unable to fulfil the service commitments outlined in the agreement. This situation calls into question Telstra's decision-making processes and raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability in its dealings with Foxtel.

While I understand the necessity of safeguarding Foxtel’s substantial financial commitment to its cable infrastructure and the myriad hidden costs entailed in the Murdochs' massive undertaking, I feel compelled to highlight my considerable investments.

During the years I dedicated to building my business, I invested significant resources into establishing a vibrant agency across Melbourne, Ballarat, and Mount Gambier (South Australia). This agency was designed to efficiently handle incoming bookings for my Over Forties Single Club, a lively community hub for singles over forty seeking connection and companionship. This initiative proved to be a lucrative venture, consistently bringing in between six and seven thousand dollars each weekend, a testament to the club's popularity and the community's engagement.

A particular aspect of my narrative that Helen struggled to grasp was the overwhelming evidence I had meticulously gathered regarding the illegal fax-hacking that had infiltrated my life. This insidious activity continued until Helen’s second visit. In 1999, the global scandal concerning the News of the World and the issues surrounding her brother had not yet erupted into public consciousness. I later provided substantial evidence to the Australian Federal Police, revealing that illegal interference with faxes during various arbitrations—of which I was an active claimant—began in 1994. The alarming information I disclosed to Helen indicated that this troubling fax hacking was still affecting my business premises in 1999, four years after my arbitration was meant to have resolved these grave matters.

It’s worth noting that 1999 represents when the world was still oblivious to the upcoming hacking scandal involving the News of the World. In my draft manuscript, which I provided Helen Handbury, was an attached letter to Warwick Smith, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (the administrator of the arbitrations), who secretly, in concert with Dr Hughes, allowed Telstra's lawyers Freehill Hollingdale & Page (now rebranded as Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne) to draft the arbitration agreement instead of an interdependent lawyer as the government and COT Cases were assured would be used. The government had already written to Telstra on 5 October 1993 (see point 40 Prologue Evidence File No/2) that the government would be more than a little concerned if Freehill had any involvement in the arbitrations. And here was the administrator and arbitrator of the process, allowing Telstra to dictate in the arbitration agreement how the process was to be conducted. The fact that the arbitrator, Dr Gordon Hughes, had sent this on 12 May 1995, the day after he had deliberated on my arbitration damning the same Freehill Hollingdale & Page / Herbert Smith Freehills, Melbourne) The agreement was not credible, but it was used to show how unethical the COT case arbitrations were.

To say this set of circumstances upset Helen Handbury is an understated. Helen was horrified.

Fax Screening / Hacking Example Only 

Interception of this 12 May 1995 letter by a secondary fax machine:

Whoever had access to Telstra’s network, and therefore the TIO’s office service lines, knew – during the designated appeal time of my arbitration – that my arbitration was conducted using a set of rules (arbitration agreement) that the arbitrator declared not credible. There are three fax identification lines across the top of the second page of this 12 May 1995 letter:

1. The third line down from the top of the page (i.e. the bottom line) shows that the document was first faxed from the arbitrator’s office on 12-5-95, at 2:41 pm to the Melbourne office of the TIO – 61 3 277 8797;
2. The middle line indicates that it was faxed on the same day, one hour later, at 15:40, from the TIO’s fax number, followed by the words “TIO LTD”.
3. The top line, however, begins with the words “Fax from” followed by the correct fax number for the TIO’s office (visible.

Consider the order of the time stamps. The top line is the second sending of the document at 14:50, nine minutes after the fax from the arbitrator’s office; therefore, between the TIO’s office receiving the first fax, which was sent at 2.41 pm (14:41), and sending it on at 15:40, to his home, the fax was also re-sent at 14:50. In other words, the document sent nine minutes after the letter reached the TIO office was intercepted.

The fax imprint across the top of this letter is the same as the fax imprint described in the Scandrett & Associates report (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), which states:

“We canvassed examples, which we are advised are a representative group, of this phenomena .

“They show that

• the header strip of various faxes is being altered
• the header strip of various faxes was changed or semi overwritten.
• In all cases the replacement header type is the same.
• The sending parties all have a common interest and that is COT.
• Some faxes have originated from organisations such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.
• The modified type face of the header could not have been generated by the large number of machines canvassed, making it foreign to any of the sending services.”

The fax imprint across the top of this letter dated 12 May 1995 (Open Letter File No 55-A) is the same as the fax imprint described in the January 1999 Scandrett & Associates report provided to Senator Ron Boswell (see Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13), confirming faxes were intercepted during the COT arbitrations. One of the two technical consultants attesting to the validity of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

The evidence within this report Open Letter File No/12 and File No/13) also indicated that one of my faxes sent to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello was similarly intercepted, i.e.,

Exhibit 10-C → File No/13 in the Scandrett & Associates report Pty Ltd fax interception report (refer to (Open Letter File No/12 and  File No/13) confirms my letter of 2 November 1998 to the Hon Peter Costello Australia's then Federal Treasure was intercepted scanned before being redirected to his office. These intercepted documents to government officials were not isolated events, which, in my case, continued throughout my arbitration, which began on 21 April 1994 and concluded on 11 May 1995. Exhibit 10-C File No/13 shows this fax hacking continued until at least 2 November 1998, more than three years after the conclusion of my arbitration.

One of the two technical consultants who verified the accuracy of this January 1999 fax interception report emailed me on 17 December 2014, stating:

“I still stand by my statutory declaration that I was able to identify that the incoming faxes provided to me for review had at some stage been received by a secondary fax machine and then retransmitted, this was done by identifying the dual time stamps on the faxes provided.” (Front Page Part One File No/14)

After years of researching the casualties of Telstra stories, I realized that the episode involving Communist China and North Vietnam from my early life was connected to my COT story. However, I wrote them separately to help readers understand how these two narratives intersect. One narrative focuses on the China episode, providing insight into Australia's history of feeding the enemy. This can be accessed by clicking on "Flash Backs – China-Vietnam." The other narrative is deeply rooted in "Confronting Despair." This approach allows readers to choose which story they prefer to engage with.

Since that pivotal moment, I have dedicated myself to meticulously copying, scanning, and organizing a vast archive of information. This extensive archive comprises sixteen CDs and several USB mini hard drives, amounting to over 140,000 Freedom of Information (FOI) documents. These documents are crucial to several COT (Consumers of Telecommunications) cases and highlight the unfulfilled promises made by the Australian government. Many individuals involved in these cases were assured they would receive these vital documents in varying amounts during their arbitration and mediation processes. Unfortunately, those assurances were never honoured, which is particularly troubling given that this promise was linked to the civilians' decision to halt their push for a Senate investigation into Telstra, Australia’s major telecommunications company. During this challenging period, Telstra retained many prominent legal firms and auditors—47 of the most distinguished in Australia. Their involvement underscores the seriousness of the situation.

Various organizations, including the Major Fraud Group of Victoria Police, William Hunt Lawyers, and barrister Sue Owens from Melbourne, along with numerous concerned private individuals, have expressed their deep disgust and disappointment regarding the treatment of the COT Cases. They have shown support for those affected despite the pressure exerted on them by government officials, Telstra, and others who had a vested interest in hiding the truth about the validity of our claims. The COT Cases and their families have endured significant suffering despite government commitments that their costly arbitration and mediation processes would resolve the ongoing telephone and fax problems that initially led them to seek arbitration and mediation.

In my case, the phone and faxing problems were not fixed as part of my government-endorsed process as the two following links Chapter 4 The New Owners Tell Their Story and Chapter 5 Immoral - Hypocritical Conduct show.

On a personal note, I have encountered substantial health challenges over the years, including two heart attacks, and I now live with a pacemaker. Despite these hurdles, I have published one book, with a second one nearly complete, but it still awaits editing. Given my health circumstances, I doubt my ability to finish a third or fourth book.

Nevertheless, I have developed twelve chapters that function as mini-reports, each fortified with evidence files that substantiate the claims made within. For those interested in gaining a deeper understanding of my investigations and findings, I invite you to explore the links to the twelve chapters below, which detail my progress as of March 2025. Your engagement with this work is appreciated and crucial for shedding light on these pressing issues. Furthermore, this website can access additional mini-reports, including →Evidence File-1 and Evidence-File-2, which offer more insights into the complexities of our stories.

Telstra-Corruption-Freehill-Hollingdale & Page

Corrupt practices persisted throughout the COT arbitrations, flourishing in secrecy and obscurity. These insidious actions have managed to evade necessary scrutiny. Notably, the phone issues persisted for years following the conclusion of my arbitration, established to rectify these faults.

Confronting Despair

The independent arbitration consultants demonstrated a concerning lack of impartiality. Instead of providing clear and objective insights, their guidance to the arbitrator was often marked by evasive language, misleading statements, and, at times, outright falsehoods.

Flash Backs – China-Vietnam

In 1967, Australia participated in the Vietnam War. I was on a ship transporting wheat to China, where I learned China was redeploying some of it to North Vietnam. Chapter 7, "Vietnam—Vietcong," discusses the link between China and my phone issues.

A Twenty-Year Marriage Lost

As bookings declined, my marriage came to an end. My ex-wife, seeking her fair share of our venture, left me with no choice but to take responsibility for leaving the Navy without adequately assessing the reliability of the phone service in my pursuit of starting a business.

Salvaging What I Could

Mobile coverage was nonexistent, and business transactions were not conducted online. Cape Bridgewater had only eight lines to service 66 families—132 adults. If four lines were used simultaneously, the remaining 128 adults would have only four lines to serve their needs.

Lies Deceit And Treachery

I was unaware of Telstra's unethical and corrupt business practices. It has now become clear that various unethical organisational activities were conducted secretly. Middle management was embezzling millions of dollars from Telstra.

An Unlocked Briefcase

On June 3, 1993, Telstra representatives visited my business and, in an oversight, left behind an unlocked briefcase. Upon opening it, I discovered evidence of corrupt practices concealed from the government, playing a significant role in the decline of Telstra's telecommunications network.

A Government-backed Arbitration

An arbitration process was established to hide the underlying issues rather than to resolve them. The arbitrator, the administrator, and the arbitration consultants conducted the process using a modified confidentiality agreement. In the end, the process resembled a kangaroo court.

Not Fit For Purpose

AUSTEL investigated the contents of the Telstra briefcases. Initially, there was disbelief regarding the findings, but this eventually led to a broader discussion that changed the telecommunications landscape. I received no acknowledgement from AUSTEL for not making my findings public.
&am

A Non-Graded Arbitrator

Who granted the financial and technical advisors linked to the arbitrator immunity from all liability regarding their roles in the arbitration process? This decision effectively shields the arbitration advisors from any potential lawsuits by the COT claimants concerning misconduct or negligence.<

The AFP Failed Their Objective

In September 1994, two officers from the AFP met with me to address Telstra's unauthorized interception of my telecommunications services. They revealed that government documents confirmed I had been subjected to these violations. Despite this evidence, the AFP did not make a finding.&am

The Promised Documents Never Arrived

In a February 1994 transcript of a pre-arbitration meeting, the arbitrator involved in my arbitration stated that he "would not determination on incomplete information.". The arbitrator did make a finding on incomplete information.